× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.


  1.  Home
  2. RPG400-L
  3. March 2020

Re: regexec() Standards Compliance

Hello Javier,

Am 25.03.2020 um 22:41 schrieb Javier Sánchez <javiersanchezbarquero@xxxxxxxxx>:

I've found some comments about shortcuts not being supported. For example,
"\d+" is supposedly not supported, and instead one should use "[0-9]+".

Yes, the former is known as "Perl Syntax". Since "[0-9]+" works, I think it's Extended Regex Syntax. (If it wasn't, you'd need "[0-9]\+".) So, probably stuff like "[[:digit:]]+" might also work.

But, if I use the former regex, regcomp() compiles ok, but regexec() does
not match any single digit sequence like "123456789", until I use "[0-9]+"
. I think if it's not supported, regcomp() it shouldn't even succeed.

How is it supposed to do so? Everything it doesn't know about is interpreted as string literal.

:wq! PoC

PGP-Key: DDD3 4ABF 6413 38DE - https://www.pocnet.net/poc-key.asc


As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This thread ...
Replies:
Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.